Julian Gillespie, a retired Australian lawyer and former barrister, gave testimony at Covid Under Question hosted by Senator Malcolm Roberts on 23 March 2022. He is currently managing proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia related to “Australian Vaccination-Risks Network Incorporated v. Secretary, Department of Health.”
Covid Under Question was a cross-party inquiry into the Australian government’s response to Covid. Parliamentarians heard from a range of doctors, experts, economists and everyday people about how the Government’s response to Covid has affected them and at times defied belief. The absurdity of Chief Health Officer dictates and power-hungry politicians was all laid bare. The full day’s proceedings, with transcripts, are available HERE.
Gillespie believes that the Australian people have not been given accurate information around Covid deaths, and deaths from the Covid injections. During an interview with Zeee Media at the beginning of this year he explained that he was hoping to bring a substantive case regarding Covid injections before the Federal Court in February when the courts re-opened. On 23 March he stepped out of the court hearing to testify before the Covid Under Question panel.
“The first limb of our evidence, is the unprecedented injuries and deaths that we are witnessing across the community,” Gillespie told the panel.
“Historically vaccines in this country, between the years of 1971 up to 2020 averaged 2.4 deaths per annum. As of today’s date, we have reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration [“TGA”] adverse event database, as many as 800 deaths as a consequence of these vaccines. So, we’ve got 2.4 deaths historically per year. Now in the last 12 months, we’ve got 800 … [and] what we’ve got now are over 110,000 adverse event reports with respect to these vaccines.”
The second point, he said, is that the Department of Health, and indeed every other regulator around the world, had assured and continues to assure their respective publics that these vaccines could not, and would not, interfere with the nucleus of cells.
“What we have discovered is that these spike proteins are indeed infiltrating the nucleus, where they are now inhibiting DNA damage repair … [a] peer review report … three weeks ago [shows] that the mRNA that is contained within these vaccines is also entering the nucleus. It is interfering in measurable form, with the DNA … It is causing disruption to a number of typical chemical activities. One of those involves the protein production of the protein line one. When you disrupt line one, you lose embryos within females. The other disruption to line one, again, is another precursor of any cancer that you wish to name.”
Gillespie explained that none of the genotoxicity or carcinogenicity tests were conducted on the Covid “vaccines” that should have been conducted prior to authorising them as safe for injecting into the public.
“This is the first time in the history of drug regulation in this country, that the TGA did not bother to look at these critical, fundamental, attributes of the drug … this is the first instance that mRNA technology delivery systems with the lipid nanoparticles have been provided to the human or apes. In those circumstances, we’ve a radically new technology. It was incumbent upon regulators globally to look at the genotoxicity, and the issues with respect to cancer, and none of that was done.”
Pfizer whistle-blower Brook Jackson is providing evidence for their federal court case. Jackson went to the British Medical Journal (“BMJ”) and delivered all her information, Gillespie explained.
“The BMJ’s excellent investigators vetted all that information, verified it, and published a paper on the 2nd of November of 2021. That is presumed under the pharmacovigilance duties of the TGA [to] have come to the knowledge and notice of the TGA on the 2nd of November, 2021.
“Any of the primary material relied upon by a decision maker, if fraud is said to have touched it, if the decision maker does not suspend that decision and investigate immediately, well then, the decision is nullified at law.
“That evidence was put at the feet of the Secretary of Health one week ago. He has until tomorrow to suspend, or cancel the drugs based on the fraud. Because of his inaction to investigate the fraud or any aspect of it, we once again, expect the secretary is going to ignore us, so that information will be put under affidavit. We’ll go into the substantive hearing, which is next scheduled for the 20th of April. That’s the next earliest date.”
A further point is that the “vaccines” being massed produced and injected into the population are not the same as those trialled before approval.
“[For example] Pfizer’s clinical trial was said to have been run with mRNA integrity of 72% … after they got approval and went to commercial operations … they could not get stability on the mRNA integrity … In a rush to get this stuff out the door and approved, all of a sudden, the regulatory agencies, the FDA together with the EMA together with the English equivalent, the MHRA, all of a sudden dropped the mRNA integrity requirement, to 50% … there were no clinical trials done with respect to any vaccine, which was only putting forward an mRNA integrity of 50%. So, there’s no safety data with respect to the lower mRNA integrity, and there’s no efficacy data with respect to the lower mRNA efficacy.”
In addition, the mRNA integrity between batches varies radically. The variance has been between 81.3% down to 55.7%. “We’ve never seen such instability in drugs,” Gillespie said, “there’s plenty of data to show the history of vaccine stability and integrity going back 20 years where the variance goes very little above, like, a percentage above zero. But here we’re getting answers of 30 or 40% in terms of integrity.”
“A recipient of a batch above 72% mRNA integrity is essentially getting a toxic dose. Had they used 80% mRNA toxicity in the clinical trials, we would’ve seen a lot of problems. They would’ve scaled back the actual dosage below the 30 micrograms that are currently being administered now.”
Gillespie then explained the role AHPRA has played in Covid policies, how they were formed, who they answer to and how established scientific pandemic guidance and advice was replaced by World Health Organisation (“WHO”) recommendations “which were radically opposite to the science that Australia had already invested in,” under their own influenza pandemic plan.
“Once [WHO’s recommendations were] adopted and sent up from the AHPPC to the national cabinet, that’s where Scott Morrison could say with plausible deniability: ‘These are the best recommendations in the world. We must pursue these. I’m going to give you all the share of just over $7 billion to go and implement quarantining, lockdowns, school closures, work placed closures. Now run along’.
“Now, with that incentive over $7 billion offered as the carrot, that’s where we saw individual states run back, premiers run back to their states and territories. And in their own hazardous ways start implementing as many of those items as they possibly could, even though they were co-authors on the pandemic influenza plan back in August of 2019.
“Every single health department and every single state and territory was a co-contributor, an author of that pandemic plan. They knew the science but instead wanted to take the cash that Mr. Morrison was offering them .
“The AHPPC is the new body who AHPRA answers to.”
Click on the image below to watch the video on Rumble.
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post